Poroshenko shifts responsibility of anti-corruption court to parliament

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko believes that
legislation on creating a High Anti-Corruption Court should comply with the
recommendations of Ukraine’s Western partners, but only to the extent that it
does not contradict with Ukrainian legislation, the pravda.com.ua news site
reported on Feb. 17, citing comments made to the Munich Security Conference.
“It is very important now that we all come together
to reach a compromise in parliament,” Poroshenko said, as reported by the
AFP news agency, which stated that he “would not modify the text despite IMF
criticism”.

Recall, Ukrainian media published in January a letter
from the IMF criticizing a bill to create
the anti-corruption court submitted by Poroshenko. The creation of an
independent court, in line with recommendations of Western partners, is
essential for Ukraine to count on further financial support from the EU and
IFIs.

Ukraine’s Parliamentary Speaker Andriy Parubiy told
IMF representatives on Feb. 15 that the recommendations of the Venice
Commission to the bill on the anti-corruption court will likely be included
when it will be prepared for the second reading. (The bill has yet to be
reviewed for the vote in the first reading). The bill, most likely in the first
reading, will be included in the parliamentary agenda in late February, and
Parubiy forecasts its final approval by May.

Alexander Paraschiy:
Poroshenko’s comments are worrisome as they reveal that he is not ready to do all
his best to create an independent anti-corruption court. His statement that any
changes to the bill depend on parliament doesn’t look legitimate as the
parliament has only one draft that has already been prepared by president’s
team. Instead, it looks like Poroshenko is trying to shift responsibility for
the possible failure to adopt an adequate law (and failure to get IFI loans
this year) to the parliament. His statement that the law should correspond with
Ukrainian legislation is hard to comment on without sarcasm as any new law can
amend most of existing laws. For instance, Ukrainian legislation was not an
impediment for Poroshenko when he was eager to appoint a close ally as
Ukraine’s prosecutor general (the law was amended in one day to allow Yuriy Lutsenko
to qualify).

Parubiy’s position looks more constructive, but it
is hard to believe that most of Ukraine’s lawmakers will support creating the
anti-corruption court without the president’s active prodding. However, since
Ukraine needs IFI loans this year to keep the economy from destabilizing, we
still expect that some sense will prevail among leaders and some compromise
will be struck enabling Ukraine to get financing this year from the IMF, the EU
and other multilateral partners.